Wait for the simulation to end

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: the operation may return incomplete, the finished=false path requires re-invocation, and the completed path surfaces new log errors and pop-ups. This goes beyond what the annotations declare.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose in one clause, then splits the two return states cleanly with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place for a tool of this complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't restate return shapes, and it correctly focuses on the waiting/re-call contract instead. The only real gap is explicit sibling routing against cm_status, which is minor given how clearly the blocking semantics come through.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so poll_s and timeout_s are already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail for them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('wait until the simulation is idle') that is clearly a blocking operation, which an agent can distinguish from instantaneous tools like cm_status or cm_live. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives the key operating instruction for the not-finished case ('call again to keep waiting') and implies usage via the two finished branches. But it never states when to prefer this over cm_status or how it relates to cm_stop_sim, leaving the routing decision implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.